On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, "Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, I'd like to iterate, if it wasn't clear enough in the first place,
> that my essay about free software is what *I* think. I put it on my own
> page, it clearly has my name on the top, and it doesn't represent anyone
> on the list, especially not you Moshe (since you have somewhat bizarre
> opinions, it's hard to represent you ;)).
..much like the group of symplectomorphisms ;)
> Also, "tochna kovelet" is a very judgemental term.
So is "tochna hofshit" (obviously, freedom is good). The natural opposite
would be "tochna mesha'abedet", so my term was pretty unjudgemental
compared to alternatives ;)
> Moshe, as I said time and again, this essay was aimed at ordinary Israeli
> people, law-abiding citizens
Military intelligence?
Microsoft works?
> So if I have to take something for granted,
> it's that breaking the law is bad. It's better, when possible, not to
> break the law.
I disagree. The law is a (twisted) mirror of morality (or should be). The
law is (bad) means to an end -- getting people to act morally.
> And free software is exactly that: it's a way to share
> software *without* breaking the law.
Perhaps, "without having to face jailtime" is a better way to phrase it.
> People who don't have a moral problem with breaking the law (I guess you
> don't) sometimes find it hard to understand why free software is necessary.
I fully understand why free software is necessary. But no, I see no moral
problem with breaking the law *per se*. It's illegal to murder, and I have
a moral objection to murder -- however, it is not a cause-and-effect relation.
> I like to give the following example: imagine a situation where bread
> is free (because bread-reproducing technology is available) but caviar
> is not (say, because caviar-reproducing technology is hidden or patented).
> Now, poor people can never go hungry because bread is free. But is it
> justified or moral for them to demand that Caviar should also be made
> free, and say they can't live with bread alone, because caviar tastes
> better? Is it immoral for the caviar makers to withold its product from
> the poor people, when a bread is available freely?
Nadav, I expected better from you. Invalid arguments can have correct
conclusions ;) Yes, it would be immoral to patent or hide the caviar-producing
technology, but not because caviar tastes better, but because hiding
technological knowledge is immoral.
> Similarly, free software is available and people can use it freely and
> legally. If you're speaking of morality, is it moral to demand that all
> software should be free, and if it isn't, just pretend that it is
> ("piracy")?
Yes, it is.
It is illegal, but moral. What is immoral is to encumber people's rights
with artificial clauses like copyright.
> Feel free to write your own essay focusing on this issue.
> There are dozens of issues related to free software, and I couldn't very
> well focus on all of them and still write a relatively-short article that
> will be understandable by laymen.
I know. My only beef was that there wasn't a clear disclaimer. Yes, it
is on your site and bearing your name -- but what could a disclaimer
hurt?
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
